01

UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES DRUG, FOOD AND ALLIED

INDUSTRIES UNIONS KILUSANG MAYO UNO (UFE-DFA-KMU) ,
petitioner, vs . NESTL PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED, respondent.

Facts: (consolidated case, case at bar is the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of earlier ruling)

UFE-DFA-KMU was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Nestl
April 2001: existing CBA was to end on 5 June 2001, so the Union informed respondent company of the intent to open a new CBA for the
year 2001-2004; Nestle said it was preparing its own proposal
Dialogue ensued but the parties failed to reach any agreement on the economic conditions of the CBA; even conciliation proceedings
failed. Nestle refused to bargain, setting a precondition for the holding of collective bargaining negotiations the non-inclusion of the issue
of Retirement Plan.
October 2001: UFE-DFA-KMU filed a Notice of Strike predicated on Nestl's alleged unfair labor practices, that is, bargaining in bad faith
by setting pre-conditions in the ground rules and/or refusing to include the issue of the Retirement Plan in the CBA negotiations.
November 2001: Nestle filed a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction with the Secretary of the DOLE over the current dispute in order to
effectively enjoin any impending strike by the members of the UFE-DFA-KMU. Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the case and issued an
order to enjoin any strike.
January 2002: despite said order, the employee members of UFE-DFA-KMU at Nestl's Cabuyao Plant went on strike
March 2002: case brought before CA with the Court ruling grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of DOLE
In order to finally settle the dispute, then Acting Secretary of the DOLE (iba na tong secretary sa kanina) issued an order calling for the
execution of the CBA among other things
CA: ruled grave abuse of disretion

Issue/s:

1) WoN Nestles setting of a precondition for the holding of collective bargaining negotiations consists of Unfair Labor Practice

Ruling & Ratio:

1) NO

ART. 248. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS. It shall be

unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor
practices
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this
Code

In the case at bar, except for the assertion put forth by UFE-DFA-KMU, neither the second Notice of Strike nor the records of these cases
substantiate a finding of Unfair labor practice. It is not enough that the union believed that the employer committed acts of unfair labor practice when
the circumstances clearly negate even a prima facie showing to warrant such a belief.

There is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts. Herein, no proof was
presented to exemplify bad faith on the part of Nestl apart from mere allegation. Construing arguendo that the content of the aforequoted letter of 29
May 2001 laid down a pre-condition to its agreement to bargain with UFE-DFA-KMU, Nestl's inclusion in its Position Paper of its proposals
affecting other matters covered by the CBA negates the claim of refusal to bargain or bargaining in bad faith. Accordingly, since UFE-DFA-KMU
failed to proffer substantial evidence that would overcome the legal presumption of good faith on the part of Nestl.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the basic issues of the case having been passed upon and there being no new arguments availing, the Motion for
Partial Reconsideration is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY for lack of merit. Let these cases be remanded to the Secretary of the Department of
Labor and Employment for proper disposition, consistent with the discussions in this Court's Decision of 22 August 2006 and as hereinabove set
forth. No costs.